363_372 Mynarova.qxp 07.03.
2011 20:05 Seite 363
TRADITION OR INNOVATION?
THE UGARITIC-EGYPTIAN CORRESPONDENCE
By Jana Mynárová 1
INTRODUCTION
“Beginning of the victory of the King of Upper
and Lower Egypt, Wesermaatre Setepenre, Son of
Re, {Beloved of the Gods},2 Ramesse (II) Meri-
amun, given life forever, which he reached
against the land of %atti, NaXarina, against the
land of Arzawa, against Pidassa, against the land
of Dardanaya, against the land of Masa, against
the land of Qarqiša and Lukka, against Car-
chemiš, Qedy, the land of Qadeš, against the land
of Ugarit (and) Mušnatu”.3
These words represent the beginning of the
Egyptian description of the military campaign in
Syria that Ramesse II undertook in the 5th year of
his reign. It is right here, in the records of the
Battle of Qadeš, that we find the land of Ugarit
identified as being on the side of the Hittite king
and Egypt, its traditional business and political
partner, is found to be on the opposing side. But
the Battle of Qadeš represents only a tiny – nev-
ertheless a very important – fragment in the
mosaic that is the evolving relationship between
the two political entities. Over more than two
hundred years the political and economic rela-
tionship between Ugarit and the land on the Nile
1
Charles University in Prague. This article is based on a
paper presented at an international conference Society
and administration in ancient Ugarit held in Leiden
(December 13–14, 2007). The participation at the sym-
posium and the preparation of the manuscript were
enabled by the support of the Czech Science Founda-
tion, research grant No. 404/06/P058, Amarna – the
Crossroad of the Ancient World.
2 6
For the reconstruction consult KITCHEN 1996, 2.
3
Cf. KRI II: 3 §§1–6. For the standard editions of the
texts see KUENTZ 1928–1934; HASSAN 1929; GARDINER
1935; I, 23–24, II, pls. 9–10A; CHRISTOPHE, DONADONI
and EDEL [s.d.]; and KRI II: 2–147; for the translations
and commentaries consult especially BREASTED 1906,
125–157, §§298–351; ERMAN 1923, 325–337; WILSON
1927; FAULKNER 1958; GARDINER 1960; LICHTHEIM 1976,
II, 57–72; VON DER WAY 1984; FECHT 1984; KITCHEN 1996,
2–26; DAVIES 1997, 55–96; and KITCHEN 1999, 3–54.
4
See mainly WARD 1979; ASTOUR 1981; GIVEON 1981;
GIVEON 1986; HELCK 1995; LACKENBACHER 1995; NA’AMAN
Ägypten und Levante/Egypt and the Levant 20, 2010, 363–372
© 2010 by Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien
underwent a significant development, which is
reflected in sources preserved on both sides.4
The nature of this process – from partners to
enemies and back again – can also be recognized
in the epistolary documents, which were sent
from one royal office to the other. The conclu-
sion of the Silver Treaty in 1258 BCE provided
Ugarit with the opportunity to revive, once again,
the ties with Egypt and it was presumably at that
time that the Ugaritic – Egyptian correspon-
dence began again as well. The preserved episto-
lary documents were indeed written during peri-
ods which can be described, without exaggera-
tion, as the real high water marks in the relation-
ship between the two centres.
Following only sporadic references to Ugarit
in the Memphis5 and Karnak6 stelae of Amen-
hotep II (ca. 1427–1400 BCE),7 dated to the early
part of his sole reign, and also the mention of
Ugarit in the Nubian topographical list of Amen-
hotep III (ca. 1388–1351/1350 BCE) in Soleb,8
the earliest testimony and indisputable evidence
of the existing relationship is provided by means
of the correspondence between the two royal
courts, preserved in the Amarna archive of the
middle of the 14th century BCE.
1996; VITA – GALÁN 1997; SINGER 1999: esp. 614–616,
621–627, 646–650, 673–675, 708–719 (with a detailed
discussion and references to further literature); FREU
2000; LACKENBACHER 2000; YON 2003.
5
Today in the collections of the Egyptian Museum in
Cairo (JE 6301). For the text see Urk. IV, 1301.3–1309.20,
for the toponym see Urk. IV, 1303.9. Consult mainly
BADAWI 1943, GRDSELOFF 1947, VIKENTIEV 1949.
See Urk. IV, 1310.3–1316.4, for the toponym see Urk. IV,
1312.8, reconstructed in Urk. IV, 1312.11 (“chief of
TN”). For the Karnak stela cf. mainly ERMAN 1889,
LEGRAIN 1903, EDEL 1953, 98–103.
7
See EDEL 1953, 149–153. For the military campaign of
Amenhotep II in the 7th year of his reign consult espe-
cially ALT 1954, SPALINGER 1982, 142–152, DER
MANUELIAN 1987, 56–68, 221–229 (including the trans-
lations of both stelae), GOEDICKE 1992.
8
SIMONS 1937, 132–133, 199.
363_372 Mynarova.qxp 07.03.2011 20:05 Seite 364

364 Jana Mynárová

THE “UGARITIC-EGYPTIAN” CORRESPONDENCE there are no letters addressed by the king of

IN THEAMARNA AGE
The corpus of Amarna “Ugaritic” correspon-
dence, i.e. documents of Ugaritic origin found in
the Amarna archive, consists of five – more or less
fragmentary – letters, labeled in Knudtzon’s stan-
dard edition as EA 45 (VAT 1692), EA 46 (VAT
1694), EA 47 (VAT 1693), EA 48 (VAT 1690) and
EA 49 (CG 4783; SR 4/12238/0).9 With the
exception of the final text, EA 49, housed in the
Egyptian Museum in Cairo, the remaining four
tablets belong to the collections of the Vorderasi-
atisches Museum in Berlin. All of them were written
in Akkadian and addressed by the king or queen
of Ugarit to their Egyptian counterparts. Howev-
er, the identification of the sender is preserved
only in two cases – in EA 45 and EA 49 and the
Ugaritic origin of the remaining three docu-
ments, i.e. EA 46–EA 48, has only recently been
confirmed for certain by means of petrographic
and mineralogical analyses.10 Unfortunately,
Egypt to the king of Ugarit within this corpus so it
is impossible to reliably reconstruct how the
Egyptian king would have identified himself in his
letters. Nevertheless, we can get a general idea
about this through references to a preserved
group of letters sent by the king of Egypt to his
other partners.
Despite the fragmentary nature of the Amarna
“Ugaritic” letters, it is possible to reconstruct the
formal structure of these texts in some detail. It is
highly probable that all the letters had a binomi-
nal structure, consisting of an opening passage
and the body of the letter. Concerning the open-
ing passages, by far the best preserved example
can be found in EA 49 (lines 1–7), consisting of
the address, followed by a prostration formula
and culminating in a well-being wish to the Egypt-
ian king, extended also to the members of his
household and belongings (i.e. the so-called
“extended” version of the wish). With some reser-
vation, we can also recognize the very same struc-

Identification Akkadian References

“the king” LUGAL EA 47: 10; EA 49: 1, 3, 4
“my master” be-li-ia EA 49: 19 be-l[i-ia]; EA 46: 26
b[e-li-ia] EA 46: 6
be-li EA 46: 16, 22, 24; EA 47: 25
be-l[i] EA 46: 21;
EN-ia EA 47: 12, 13, 25; EA 49: 1, 3, 4, 7
[E]N-ia EA 47: 29
[EN-i]a EA 47: 11
“my mistress” be-li-ti-ia EA 48: 7
[b]e-li-ti-ia EA 48: 1
[be-li-t]i-ia EA 48: 3
[be-li-ti-]ia EA 48: 4
“the Sun” D.UTU-ši EA 45: 20; EA 46: 6, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27; EA 47: 10; EA 49: 1, 3, 4
D.UT[U-ši] EA 46: 2; EA 46: 25
D.[U]T[U-ši] EA 45: 29
[D].UTU-ši EA 45: 1; EA 49: 7

Table 1 An identification of the king/queen of Egypt in the Amarna letters of Ugaritic origin

9
KNUDTZON 1915, 308–319.
10
GOREN, FINKELSTEIN and NA’AMAN 2004, 88–91. However,
all four tablets – i.e. including EA 45 – from the collec-
tions of the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin were exam-
ined with the identical conclusion that the particular let-
ters were verily sent from Ugarit. Cf. GOREN, FINKELSTEIN
and NA’AMAN 2004, 91: “Our study indicates that letters
EA 45–48 are similar in their mineralogical composition,
and that they differ from other letters within the Amar-
na archive. Petrographically they suit the rather unique
lithology of the Ugarit area and are identical to the ref-
erence material from Ras Shamra.”
363_372 Mynarova.qxp 07.03.2011 20:05 Seite 365
Tradition or Innovation? The Ugaritic-Egyptian Correspondence 365
ture in the opening passage in the case of EA 45,
though the passage (lines 1–7) is largely a mere
reconstruction based only on very tiny traces of
individual signs. It has already been proved11 that
within the context of the corpus of Amarna epis-
tolary documents this particular combination of
the “heading + salutations consisting of prostra-
tion + greetings (simple) + extended greetings” is
attested exclusively in some of the Akkadian epis-
tolary documents of Ugaritic origin. However, a
letter from the queen(?) or “mistress” of Ugarit
(EA 48) includes in the opening passage (lines
1–4) only an address, a prostration formula and a
“simple” form of the well-being wish.12 The
remaining two letters, i.e. EA 46 and EA 47 are
too badly damaged to be useful in this case, the
preserved parts belonging only to the bodies of
the letters. Thus it is impossible to speculate on
the form of the relevant opening passages.
The protocols for the addressing or appella-
tion of the Egyptian ruler in the “Ugaritic” corpus
is – also due to the fragmentary nature of the doc-
uments – rather meager and limited. It is impos-
sible to observe any crucial differences between
the forms employed for the identification of the
ruler used in the opening passages and those in
the respective bodies of letters. Thus, the
addressee is identified only as “the king,” “my
master,” or “my mistress,” and “the Sun,” as can be
witnessed in the Table 1.
THE “UGARITIC–EGYPTIAN” CORRESPONDENCE IN
13
THE RAMESSIDE PERIOD
On the other hand, the Ramesside corpus of
“Ugaritic–Egyptian” correspondence, dated to
another high point in the relationship, i.e. to the
the 13th and the very beginning of the 12th cen-
tury BCE, is much more varied. Just as in the
11
Cf. MYNÁROVÁ 2006; MYNÁROVÁ 2007, 108.
12
For this type of the opening passage consult MYNÁROVÁ
2007, 107.
13
For the differences in protocol between the Amarna
and the Ramesside periods consult recently MYNÁROVÁ
2009.
14
Cf. Ug. V, no. 36; BERGER 1970, 288; AHL 1973, 351–353;
LACKENBACHER 1994; VAN SOLDT 1994; KORÍNKOVÁ 2002.
15
Cf. PRU II, no. 18; AHL 1973, 421–422; DIJKSTRA 1987,
41–42; CUNCHILLOS 1989: 309–311. For the dating of
the text see also recently SINGER 1999, 713 with further
references.
16
Cf. BORDREUIL 1982, 10–12.
Amarna collection, the Ramesside group includes
an Akkadian letter addressed by the king of Ugar-
it to the king of Egypt (labeled RS 20.182 A + B)14
but, in addition, this corpus is also enlarged by a
collection of epistolary drafts: RS 16.078 + 16.109
+ 16.117 (CAT 2.23),15 RS 34.356 (CAT 2.76)16
and RIH 78/3 + 78/30 (CAT 2.81)17 – all written
in Ugaritic.18 In contrast with the Amarna period,
the Ramesside collection also contains letters
sent from the Egyptian “foreign” office and
addressed to the king of Ugarit. Text RS
88.215819 is dated to the reign of Merneptah, and
it is highly probable that it was written shortly
after the king’s coronation in 1213 BCE. There is
also an additional letter dated to the reign of
Merneptah – RS 94.2002 + 2003,20 which has not
yet been published, and thus has not been inte-
grated into the present article.21 A remarkable
witness to the Egyptian-Ugaritic relationship can
also be found in a letter addressed to the king of
Ugarit by an Egyptian high court official and
elder statesman Beya, RS 86.2230.22
As the direction of the correspondence is con-
cerned, i.e. whether the letters were sent from
Egypt to Ugarit or from Ugarit to Egypt, as well as
the social rank of the individual correspondents
and the language in which the correspondence
was written, the Ramesside corpus provides us
with only a single parallel to the Amarna corpus
of documents, i.e. RS 20.182 A + B. Nevertheless,
this lack of information can be supplemented, to
a certain degree, by the preserved Ugaritic drafts.
Although the opening lines of RS 20.182 A + B
are almost completely illegible, there are still
traces which allow us to reconstruct the very same
“tripartite” structure of the opening passage as in
EA 49 (see above), i.e. an address followed by a
prostration formula and an “extended” version of
17
Cf. BORDREUIL and CAQUOT 1980, 356–358, 371 fig. 9;
MILANO 1983.
18
For the Ugaritic correspondence and letter formats
consult especially LOEWENSTAMM 1969; AHL 1973; KRIS-
TENSEN 1977; CUNCHILLOS 1999 (with references to fur-
ther literature).
19
LACKENBACHER 1995; LACKENBACHER 1997.
20
Cf. SINGER 1999: 712.
21
The association of a fragmentary document RS 18.113
A + B (CAT 2.42 + CAT 2.43) with an Egyptian back-
ground cannot be accepted for the purpose of the cur-
rent presentation.
22
Cf. RSO XIV, no. 18; ARNAUD 1992, 181 n. 6
363_372 Mynarova.qxp 07.03.2011 20:05 Seite 366

366 Jana Mynárová

Identification Akkadian – Ugaritic References

“the king of Egypt” [LUGAL KUR.KU]R.MEŠ mi-iË-r[i] RS 20.182A+B: 1
mlk mËrm CAT 2.81: 1, 19’
mlk mËr[m] CAT 2.81: 10
“the mighty king” LUGAL qa-ra-[di] RS 20.182A+B:2
“master of all lands” [EN-l]i gab-bi KUR.KUR.ME[Š] RS 20.182A+B: 3
bal kl Hwt CAT 2.81: 3
[bal kl H]wt CAT 2.76: 9–10
CAT 2.76:4, 8; CAT 2.81:1, 16’, 19’, 30’; CAT 2.23:2, 9–10,
“the great king” mlk rb
23–24; CAT 9.530: 1, 9
mlk r[b] CAT 2.23: 17
[m]lk rb CAT 2.81: 10
[ml]k rb CAT 2.76:9; CAT 2.23:7
[mlk] rb CAT 2.76:1; CAT 2.23:13–14
[mlk(?)] rb CAT 2.81: 22’
“the king of kings” mlk mlkm CAT 2.81: 20’
mlk mlk[m] CAT 2.76: 9, 10
mlk ml[km] CAT 2.76: 1; CAT 9.530: 1, 9
[mlk m]lkm CAT 2.81: 3
“the good king” mlk nam CAT 2.81: 31’
[mlk na]m CAT 2.81: 2
“the just king” mlk Ëdq CAT 2.81: 2, 20’, 31’
mlk Ë[dq] CAT 2.81: 11
“the Sun” špš CAT 2.76: 7; CAT 2.81: 16’, 19’, 30’; CAT 2.23: 1, 7, 23
šp[š] CAT 2.81:13’
[šp]š CAT 2.76: 8; CAT 2.23: 16, 31
“my master” baly CAT 2.76: 4, 7, 8; CAT 2.81: 6; CAT 2.23: 2, 20, 24
bal[y] CAT 2.23: 10, 31
[bal]y CAT 2.23: 17
“my good master” baly nam CAT 2.76: 6; CAT 2.81: 22’, 24’
[bal]y nam CAT 2.81: 29’
“your good master” baly nam CAT 2.81: 21’

Table 2 Appellations of the Egyptian king in the Ramesside corpus

the well-being wish of the sender to the
addressee. So, let us now turn to the trinity of the
Ugaritic drafts. The greatest representation of
opening passages is attested in RIH 78/3 + 78/30
(CAT 2.81) where, again, we can clearly recognize
the same “tripartite” structure with the “extend-
ed” version of the well-being wish. Since the very
same structure has been identified in other royal
letters written in Akkadian, and which are also of
Ugaritic origin, it is thus very probable that the
“epistolary style” or “epistolary tradition” known
to us from some of the Amarna documents of
Ugaritic origin simply persisted well into the
Ramesside period.23 The fragmentary text RS
34.356 (CAT 2.76) differs from the previous text
to a large extent. While RIH 78/3 + 78/30 (CAT
2.81) contains a complete text in respect of its
structure, RS 34.356 (CAT 2.76) involves probably
only two specimens of the opening formulae.
Unfortunately, the last document belonging to

23
For other documents of Ugaritic origin containing this very same structure consult MYNÁROVÁ 2006, 122.
363_372 Mynarova.qxp 07.03.2011 20:05 Seite 367

Tradition or Innovation? The Ugaritic-Egyptian Correspondence 367

Identification Akkadian References

“the king” LUGAL RS 88.2158: 5’, 8’, 9’, 10’, 20’, 22’, 27’, 31’, 49’, 54’, 56’
“the Sun” D.UTU RS 88.2158: 20’
“the good son of the Sun” DUMU SIG5 D.UTU-a RS 88.2158: 9’
DUMU SIG5 &D.UTU\ RS 88.2158: 5’
“the great king” LUGAL GAL RS 86.2230: 3
“the king of Egypt” LUGAL KUR mi-i Ë-ri-m[a] RS 86.2230: 3

Table 3 Appellations of the Egyptian king in the Ramesside corpus - RS 88.2158 and RS 86.2230

this group, i.e. RS 16.078 + 16.109 + 16.117 (KTU epithets attested and well-known in other sources,
2.23), does not contain the opening passage at all. such as “the king of Egypt” and “the great king,”
Despite the earlier assertion as to the possible there are still several elements attested exclusive-
identical “epistolary tradition” in the structure of ly in this moderate corpus of letters, to be specif-
the opening passages it is possible to quickly ic – “the mighty king,” “master of all lands,” “the
observe that the identification of the addressee, i.e. king of kings,” “the just king,” “the good king,”
the Egyptian ruler, differs significantly from that “my/your good master,” and “the good son of the
which can be found in the texts of the Amarna age. Sun”. A comparison of the two corpora can be
Although, in the same way as in the Amarna seen in the Table 4.
tablets, the king of Egypt is identified as “the Sun,”
the other epithets are rather striking and unusual. Amarna Ramesside
The Akkadian letter RS 20.182 A + B contains age period
three titles or epithets – “the king of Egypt,” “the “the king” × ×
mighty king” and “the master of all lands”. On the “my master” × ×
other hand, the Ugaritic drafts contain the fol- “my mistress” ×
lowing items – “the king of Egypt,” “master of all “the Sun” × ×
lands,” “the great king,” “the king of kings,” “the
good king,” “the just king,” “the Sun,” “my mas- “the king of Egypt” ×
ter,” “my good master” or “your good master,” as “the great king” ×
can be seen in Table 2.
“the mighty king” ×
This lengthy list can be still further extended,
“the master of all lands” ×
to a certain degree, if we also include references
to the king of Egypt attested in the letters sent to “the king of kings” ×
Ugarit from the Egyptian foreign office, i.e. RS “the just king” ×
88.2158 and RS 86.2230. However, we must keep “the good king” ×
in mind that RS 88.2158 contains extensive pas- “my/your good master” ×
sages quoted from the earlier letter of the Ugarit- “the good son of the Sun” ×
ic king to his Egyptian counterpart. The Egyptian
king is identified here as “the king,” “the king of Table 4 An identification of the ruler – the Amarna age
Egypt,” “the Sun,” “the great king” as well as the and the Ramesside period
“good son of the Sun” (see Table 3).
What emerges from the overview presented
above is that the “simple” Amarna repertoire The Mighty King
identifying the Egyptian ruler to be “the king,” The Egyptian parallel or equivalent to the epithet
“my master” and “the Sun” has been fully repli- “the mighty king” (LUGAL qa-ra-[di], RS 20.182 A
cated in the Ramesside collection. Nevertheless, + B, l. 2), which – in this context – originates in
the more varied Ramesside corpus requires a the realm of the Hittite royal titulary24 (Hittite xaš-
more detailed analysis. In addition to titles and tali-), has been traditionally seen in the Egyptian

24
For the Hittite royal titulary consult especially GONNET 1979.
363_372 Mynarova.qxp 07.03.2011 20:05 Seite 368
368 Jana Mynárová
royal epithet ncwt nxt with a meaning “a mighty
king” or “a strong king”.25 However, this associa-
tion of LUGAL qa-ra-[di] and ncwt nxt can no
longer be accepted.26 In support of an alternative
view we can refer to the text of the Silver Treaty. A
comparison27 of the two versions clearly reveals a
different parallel – LUGAL qa-ra-[di] written
UR.SAG and an Egyptian royal epithet Tnr “hero”,
“valiant” or “mighty king”. An analysis of Egyptian
royal inscriptions clearly shows a growing number
of occurrences of this epithet – above all in the
context of royal military expeditions – during the
Ramesside period. Thus, it is highly probable that
the epithet of the Egyptian king LUGAL qa-ra-[di]
in RS 20.182 A + B, l. 2 originally represents a Hit-
tite royal title which entered the royal list of titles
of Ramesse II on the occasion of the conclusion
of the Silver Treaty.
Master of all lands
This epithet, attested in sources written both in
Akkadian28 as well as in Ugaritic,29 has usually been
compared to the “Amarna” epithet “king of all
lands” or “the Sun of all lands”.30 However, the use
of the epithet “king of all lands” is limited within
the Amarna archive to the letters of Rib-Addi, the
ruler of Byblos and it is used solely for the identi-
fication of the Egyptian king.31 Even the position
within the structure of the letter is identical – i.e.
the scribes employed the epithet only in the open-
ing passages of letters – in the address. There is no
example of its usage in the body of the letter at all.
Accordingly, we can assume that the epithet com-
posed one part of the official royal titles – the seg-
ment of a document where the ruler is first iden-
tified. A very striking issue relates to the manner in
which the epithet is written. With regard to the
attested examples, the manner of writing is large-
ly variable, which is rather unusual in a corpora of
texts of the same origin. Therefore, we cannot
rule out a possibility that there was no “standard-
25
See YOYOTTE 1968; MILANO 1983, 145.
26
See KORÍNKOVÁ 2002, 165–166.
27
For the comparison of both texts with further refer-
ences and extensive commentaries see EDEL 1997,
18–19.
28
Cf. RS 20.182 A + B, l. 3 [EN-l]i gab-bi KUR.KUR.ME[Š].
29
Cf. CAT 2.81: 3 bal kl Hwt, CAT 2.76: 9–10 [bal kl H]wt.
30
MILANO 1983, 143–144.
31
MYNÁROVÁ 2007, 134.
32
PUSCH and JAKOB 2003, 150 and n. 23.
ized” form of writing for this epithet, which could
also reflect the fact that its origin is outside the
cuneiform tradition.
However, German excavations in Qantir (the
site of ancient Pi-Ramesse in the Eastern Nile
Delta) in 2003 brought to light another example
of this epithet, written on a tiny and badly pre-
served fragment of an Akkadian letter (labelled
FZN 03/0260) and belonging to the corpus of
Egyptian – Hittite correspondence of the 13th
century BCE. Alongside the fragmentary traces of
the king’s name in line 7, [ … ]- &še?-ša\, the com-
plete representation of the epithet “master of
(all) lands” is preserved, cf. EN KUR.KUR.MEŠ
“[Riame]šeša, master of (all) lands”. The editors
of the publication suggest32 a possible identifica-
tion of this epithet with the Egyptian royal epi-
thet, nb tA.wj, i. e. “master/lord of the Two Lands”,
although they correctly mention that the very
same title was being written in two contempora-
neous Ramesside letters as ni-ib ta-a-ua33 and thus
there is no example of a “translation” of the title
from Egyptian to Hittite or Akkadian. However,
the same epithet/title also appears in the Hittite
sources, where, unfortunately, only two examples
are identified – both of them in Kummani’s
Prayer.34 The suggested explanations for this
expression are not conclusive.35 However, Hittite
sources reveal a similar epithet, dated to the same
time as the Qantir fragment – UR.SAG ša gab-bi
KUR.KUR.MEŠ “hero of all lands”. Once again
the epithet is employed in the text of the Silver
Treaty36 where it is included in the filiation of the
Egyptian king Ramesse II37 and the epithet is only
used with the name of Ramesse II. It does not
appear with other royal names – Hittite or Egypt-
ian – listed in the text. Thus it is possible to
assume an Egyptian background for this epithet.
Unfortunately, the parallel Egyptian version of
the text translates only the first part of the epithet
– UR.SA[G] – in Egyptian Tnr/Tl “mighty king,
33
KUB 3.28, Vs. 1; KUB 3.66 + W. 24, Vs. 1.
34
CTH 382; KBo 11.1, 11, 18: D.UTU-ši-(ma-aš)
M.NIR.GÁL EN KUR.KUR.%I.A “My Majesty/Sun
Muwatalli, master of (all) lands”.
35
I would like to express here my sincere thanks to J. de
Roos for his valuable suggestions and comments con-
cerning this particular problem.
36
Version A (KBo 1.7 + KUB 3.121 [Bo 6549 + 6674] +
KBo 28.115 [81/f + 24/r]), Obv. 4.
37
UR.SA[G š]a &gab\-bi KUR.KUR.MEŠ.
363_372 Mynarova.qxp 07.03.2011 20:05 Seite 369
Tradition or Innovation? The Ugaritic-Egyptian Correspondence 369
hero”. A highly plausible explanation for the epi-
thet “hero of all lands” has been proposed by
Elmar Edel, who interprets it as a translation of
the Egyptian form Tnr/Tl Hr xAs.wt or Tnr/Tl Hr xAs.wt
nb(.t), i.e. “mighty king/hero of foreign lands” or
“mighty king/hero of all foreign lands”.38
However, not a single occurrence of this
“Ramesside” epithet “mighty king/hero of for-
eign lands” or “mighty king/hero of all foreign
lands” is known in Egyptian written documents,
above all in the royal inscriptions, dated to the
14th century BCE, which would represent a paral-
lel or a “source” to “the king of all lands” or “the
sun of all lands” of Rib-Addi’s letters.
However, already during the reign of Thut-
mose III we find another royal epithet “lord of all
foreign lands”39 – nb xAs.wt nb.t – used as a part of
royal titles. Despite the fact that the epithet never
became widely used by the kings of Dynasty 18,
there are examples of its use from the reign of
Amenhotep II,40 Thutmose IV,41 Amenhotep
IV–Akhenaten42 and Tutankhamun.43 Thus it is
possible to suggest a parallel between Rib-Addi’s
“king of all lands” and the Egyptian “lord of all
foreign lands”, i.e. nb xAs.wt nb.t, being a kind of a
“predecessor” of the Ramesside Tnr/Tl Hr xAs.wt or
Tnr/Tl Hr xAs.wt nb(.t), i.e. “mighty king/hero of for-
eign lands” or “mighty king/hero of all foreign
lands”.
Other Epithets
The same Hittito-Egyptian milieu has been cor-
rectly identified by S. Lackenbacher44 in the case
of “the good son of the Sun”, attested twice in RS
88.2158,45 because the parallel expression
appears in a letter of Ramesse II to Pudukhepa
KUB 3.68: 4 as DUMU SIG5-qú ša D.UTU-aš.
Nevertheless, more serious problems appear
when we try to find Egyptian parallels to the other
royal epithets – “the king of kings,” “the just king,”
“the good king,” and “my/your good master”. The
38
EDEL 1997, 89.
39
Gebel Barkal Stela, Urk. IV 1228,11.
40
Karnak Stela, Urk. IV 1310, 8; Amada Stela (with a
duplicat in Vienna) Urk. IV 1289, 9, 10.
41
Amada temple, Urk. IV 1566, 5 and Neferhet’s stela (JE
34022), cf. Urk. IV 1612, 11.
42
Nachtmin’s stela, SANDMAN 1938, 145 l. 7.
expression “the king of kings,” i.e. mlk mlkm (CAT
2.81: 3, 20’; CAT 2.76: 1, 9, 10 and CAT 9.530: 1,
9), cannot be found either in the contemporane-
ous or in the earlier documents. There is a single
royal epithet HqA HqA.w m tA.w nb.w written on a
fragment of a royal colossus of Ramesse II at the
Temple of Amun in Karnak.46 Grimal recon-
structs47 the passage as HqA (n) HqA.w m tA.w nb.w and
gives a translation of “ruler (of) rulers in all the
lands”. This would fit perfectly into the Ramesside
terminology. However, I would suggest here a
slightly different translation with a passive partici-
ple. Thus the expression HqA HqA.w m tA.w nb.w
would be translated without a necessary “amend-
ment” to the text as “ruler of those who are ruled
in all lands”, which reflects more accurately its pre-
cise usage in Dynasty 18.48 None of the above men-
tioned epithets appear either in the Hittite –
Egyptian correspondence, or the contemporane-
ous Egyptian written sources.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is obvious that there was a kind
of “epistolary tradition” followed by the Ugaritic
scribes. The same structure of the opening pas-
sage is attested in both the Amarna corpus as well
as in the Ramesside collection of epistolary docu-
ments. However, during the Ramesside period, or
more precisely after the conclusion of the Silver
Treaty, the extent of the vocabulary used to iden-
tify the Egyptian king was widened significantly.
The “new” or “innovative” terminology – as evi-
denced in several examples – is closely associated
with the terminology used in the area of political
and diplomatic relations between the two Great
Powers of that time, Egypt and %atti. The Ugarit-
ic examples show that the royal scribes of Ugarit
were, to a certain degree (limited by the small
number of preserved documents), familiar with
this “new” terminology and subsequently they
were able to use it in their own compositions.
43
Restoration Stela, Urk. IV 2032, 14; copy of the Restora-
tion Stela, Urk. IV 2034, 9; further attestations: Urk. IV
2054, 8, 13, Urk. IV 2056, 8, Urk. IV 2135, 16.
44
LACKENBACHER 2001, 241.
45
5’: DUMU SIG5 &D.UTU\; 9’: DUMU SIG5 D.UTU-a
46
LE SAOUT 1982, 267.
47
GRIMAL 1986: 576 and n. 93.
48
As proved by LORTON 1974, 33–35.
363_372 Mynarova.qxp 07.03.2011 20:05 Seite 370

370 Jana Mynárová

Bibliography

AHL, S. EDEL, E.
1973 Epistolary Texts from Ugarit, Ann Arbor (unpub- 1953 Die Stelen Amenophis’ II. aus Karnak und Mem-
lished dissertation). phis mit Bericht über die asiatischen Feldzüge des
ALT, A. Königs, ZDPV 69/2, 97–176.

1954 Neue Berichte über Feldzüge von Pharaonen des 1997 Der Vertrag zwischen Ramses II. von Ägypten und
Neuen Reiches nach Palästina, ZDPV 70, 33–75. %attušili von %atti, WVDOG 95, Berlin.

ARNAUD, D. ERMAN, A.
1992 Les ports de la ‘Phénicie’ à la fin de l’âge du bron- 1889 Die syrische Feldzug Amenophis II., ZÄS 27, 39–41.
ze récent (XIV–XIII siècles) d’après les textes 1923 Die Literatur der Aegypter. Gedichte, Erzählungen und
cunéiformes de Syrie, SMEA 30, 179–194. Lehrbücher aus dem 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.,
ASTOUR, M. C. Leipzig.
1981 Ugarit and the Great Powers, 3–29, in: G. D. FAULKNER, R. O.
YOUNG (ed.), Ugarit in Retrospect. Fifty Years of Ugar- 1958 The Battle of Kadesh, MDAIK 16, 93–111.
it and Ugaritic, Winona Lake, In.
FECHT, G.
BADAWI, A.
1984 Das ‘Poème’ über die Qadeš-Schlacht, SAK 11 (=
1943 Die neue historische Stele Amenophis’ II., ASAE
Festschrift Wolfgang Helck), 281–333.
42, 1–23.
FREU, J.
BERGER, P.-R.
2000 Ugarit et les puissances à l’époque amarnienne (c.
1970 Zu den ‘akkadischen’ Briefen Ugaritica V, UF 2,
1350–1310 av. J.-C.), Semitica 50, 9–39.
285–293.
BORDREUIL, P. GARDINER, A. H.

1982 Quatre documents en cunéiformes alphabétiques 1935 Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum. Third Series,
mal connus ou inédits, Semitica 32, 5–14. Chester Beatty Gift, Vol. I. Text, Vol. II. Plates, Lon-
don.
BORDREUIL, P. and CAQUOT, A.
1960 The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II, Oxford.
1980 Les textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques décou-
verts en 1978 à Ibn Hani, Syria 57, 343–373. GIVEON, R.
BREASTED, J. H. 1981 Some Egyptological Considerations concerning
Ugarit, 55–58, in: G.D. YOUNG (ed.), Ugarit in Retro-
1906 Ancient Records of Egypt. Historical Documents from the
spect. Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic, Winona Lake,
Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. Volume III: The
In.
Nineteenth Dynasty, Chicago.
1986 Ugarit, cols. 838–842, in: W. HELCK and W. WESTEN-
CHRISTOPHE, L., DONADONI, S. and EDEL, E.
DORF (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie VI, Wiesbaden.
[s.d.] Abou – Simbel. Bataille de Kadech. Texte et description
GOEDICKE, H.
archeologique, Le Caire.
CUNCHILLOS, J.-L. 1992 Amenophis II in Samaria, SAK 19, 132–150.

1989 Correspondance. Introduction, traduction, com- GONNET, H.

mentaire, 241–421, in: Textes Ougaritiques II, LAPO 1979 La titulaire royal hittite au IIe millénaire avant J.-C.,
14, Paris. Hethitica 3, 3–108.
1999 The Ugaritic Letters, 359–374, in: W. G. E. WAT- GOREN, Y., FINKELSTEIN, I. and NA’AMAN, N.
SON and N. WYATT (eds.), Handbook of Ugaritic Stud-
2004 Inscribed in Clay. Provenance Study of the Amarna Let-
ies, HdO 39, Leiden – Boston – Köln.
ters and other Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Sonia and
DAVIES, B. G. Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology. Mono-
1997 Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Nineteenth graph Series 23, Tel Aviv.
Dynasty, Documenta Mundi. Aegyptiaca 2, Jon- GRDSELOFF, B.
sered.
1947 Sur deux passages de la nouvelle stèle d’Améno-
DER MANUELIAN, P. phis II trouvée à Memphis, ASAE 45, 107–120.
1987 Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II, HÄB 26, GRIMAL, N.
Hildesheim.
1986 Les termes de la propagande royale égyptienne de la XIXe
DIJKSTRA, M. dynastie à la conquête d’Alexandre, Mémoires de l’a-
1987 Marginalia to the Ugaritic Letters in KTU (I), UF cadémie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, nouvelle
19, 35–48. série VI, Paris.
363_372 Mynarova.qxp 07.03.2011 20:05 Seite 371
Tradition or Innovation? The Ugaritic-Egyptian Correspondence 371
HASSAN, S.
1929 Le poème dit de Pentaour et le rapport officiel sur la
bataille de Qadesh, Recueil de travaux publiés par la
Faculté des lettres 2, Le Caire.
HELCK, W.
1995 Die Beziehungen Ägypten – Ugarit, 87–94, in: M.
DIETRICH and O. LORETZ (eds.), Ugarit: ein ostmedi-
terranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient, ALASP 7,
Münster.
KITCHEN, K.A.
1996 Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated & Annotated.
Translations. Volume II. Ramesses, Royal Inscriptions,
Oxford – Cambridge, Massachusetts.
1999 Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated & Annotated. Notes
and Comments. Volume II. Ramesses II, Royal Inscrip-
tions, Oxford – Malden, Massachusetts.
KNUDTZON, J. A.
1915 Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterun-
gen. Anmerkungen ud Register bearbeitet von C.
Weber und E. Ebeling, Vorderasiatische Biblio-
thek 2, Leipzig.
KORÍNKOVÁ, J.
2002 A Note on the Date of RS 20.182 A (+) B: A Sup-
plement, ArOr 70/2, 163–168.
KRISTENSEN, A. L.
1977 Ugaritic Epistolary Formulas: A Comparative
Study of the Ugaritic Epistolary Formulas in the
Context of the Contemporary Akkadian Formulas
in the Letters from Ugarit and Amarna, UF 9,
143–158.
KUENTZ, CH.
1928–1934 La Bataille de Qadech I–III, MIFAO 55, Le
Caire.
LACKENBACHER, S.
1994 Ugaritica V no 36, N.A.B.U. 1994/3, n. 58.
1995 Une correspondance entre l’administration du
pharaon Merneptah et le roi d’Ougarit, 77–83,
in: M. YON, M. SZNYCER and P. BORDREUIL (eds.), Le
pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 av. J.-C. Histoire et
archéologie. Actes du Colloque International, Paris, 28
juin–1er juillet 1993, RSO XI, Paris.
1997 RS 88.2158, N.A.B.U. 1997/1, n. 35.
2000 Between Egypt and Hatti, NEA 63:4, 194.
2001 Une lettre d’Égypte, 239–248, in: M. YON and D.
ARNAUD (eds.), Études ougaritiques. I. Travaux
1985–1995, RSO XIV, Paris.
LE SAOUT, F.
1982 A propos d’un colosse de Ramsès II à Karnak,
267–274, in: Cahiers de Karnak 7 (1978–1981), Paris.
LEGRAIN, G.
1903 Le grande stèle d’Aménôthès II à Karnak, ASAE 4,
126–132.
LICHTHEIM, M.
1976 Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings, vol. 2,
The New Kingdom, Berkeley - Los Angeles - London.
LOEWENSTAMM, S.E.
1969 Ugaritic Formulas of Greeting, BASOR 194, 52–54.
LORTON, D.
1974 The Juridical Terminology of International Relations in
Egyptian Texts Through Dyn. XVIII, Baltimore and
London.
MILANO, L.
1983 Gli epiteti del faraone in una lettera ugaritica da
Ras Ibn Hani, 141–158, in: O. CARRUBA, M. LIVE-
RANI and C. ZACCAGNINI (eds.), Studi Orientalistici
in ricordo de Franco Pintore, Studia Mediterranea 4,
Pavia.
MYNÁROVÁ, J.
2006 Ugarit: “International” or “Vassal” Correspon-
dence?, 119–128, in: P. CHARVÁT, B. LAFONT, J.
MYNÁROVÁ and L. PECHA (eds.), L’État, le pouvoir,
les prestations et leurs formes en Mésopotamie ancienne.
Actes du Colloque assyriologique franco-tchèque. Paris,
7–8 novembre 2002, Praha.
2007 Language of Amarna – Language of Diplomacy. Per-
spectives on the Amarna Letters, Prague.
2009 From Amarna to %attušaš: Epistolary Traditions in
the Amarna and Ramesside Correspodence,
111–117, in: P. MARÍKOVÁ VLCKOVÁ, J. MYNÁROVÁ
and M. TOMÁŠEK (eds.), My Things Changed Things.
Social Development and Cultural Exchange in Prehisto-
ry, Antiquity, and the Middle Ages, Prague.
NA’AMAN, N.
1996 Ammishtamru’s Letter to Akhenaten (EA 45) and
Hittite Chronology, AuOr 14, 251–257.
PUSCH, E. B. and JAKOB, S.
2003 Der Zipfel des diplomatischen Archivs Ramses’
II., Ä&L 13, 143–153.
SANDMAN, M.
1938 Texts from the Time of Akhenaten, Bibliotheca Aegyp-
tiaca 8, Bruxelles.
SIMONS, J.
1937 Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists
Relating to Western Asia, Leiden.
SINGER, I.
1999 A Political History of Ugarit, 603–733, in: W.G.E.
WATSON and N. WYATT (eds.), Handbook of Ugaritic
Studies, HdO 39, Leiden – Boston – Köln.
SPALINGER, A.J.
1982 Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyp-
tians, Yale and London.
VAN SOLDT, W.H.
1994 More on Ugaritica V no. 36, NABU 1994, n. 98.
363_372 Mynarova.qxp 07.03.2011 20:05 Seite 372

372 Jana Mynárová

VIKENTIEV, V. WILSON, J.A.

1949 La traversée de l’Oronte. La chasse et la veillée de 1947 The Texts of the Battle of Kadesh, AJSL 43/4,
nuit du pharaon Aménophis II, d’après la grande 266–287.
stèle de Mit-Rahineh, BIE 30, 251–307.
YON, M.
VITA, J.-P. and GALÁN, J.M.
2003 The Foreign Relations of Ugarit, 41–51, in: N.
1997 Šipôï-Baaalu, un ‘égyptien’ à Ougarit, UF 29,
Chr. STAMPOLIDIS and V. KARAGEORGHIS (eds.),
709–713.
PLOES … Sea Routes … Interconnections in the
VON DER WAY, TH. Mediterranean 16th–6th c. BC. Proceedings of the Inter-
1984 Die Textüberlieferung Ramses’ II. zur Qadeš-Schlacht: national Symposium held at Rethymnon, Crete Septem-
Analyse und Struktur, HÄB 22, Hildesheim. ber 29th–October 2nd 2002, Athens.
WARD, W.A. YOYOTTE, M.J.
1979 Remarks on Some Middle Kingdom Statuary 1968 Note annexe, Ugaritica V, 113–114.
Found at Ugarit, UF 11, 799–806.